That's the thing- the people who have a huge problem with them and consequently vote for Trump do so because they have no clue what a sanctuary city is. They don't typically refuse to hand over serious criminals for deportation. It's about turning over people arrested for minor crimes, or checking the immigration status of witnesses and victims encountered in the course of their police work.

If the only witness to a murder is an illegal immigrant who believes they will be turned over to ICE if they come forward, it is unlikely the witness will help the police in their investigation and that murderer may go on to kill again. If you're going to deport every illegal immigrant you catch speeding, you're likely going to see a lot more police chases and needlessly create a greater risk to public safety than merely ticketing them like anyone else. It's situations like those, and the huge burden they would place upon police departments already spread thin, that sanctuary cities are about. All this crap about letting hardened criminals go free is just that- crap. And c'mon, how dumb do you have to be to believe the chiefs of police in hundreds of cities would support letting serious criminals go free?

I don't think the solution to this problem is let people be here illegally. They are here illegally, first of all, and you cannot blame that on the US citizens now. You can blame that on the large gov't, that we should shrink not grow.

I agree, really, in principle; but I think it would be wise to give some consideration to the economic realities and the impact on human lives, including the lives of many citizens, of mass deportations. It would simply be inhumane and impractical. We absolutely should secure our borders (but not with a stupid wall) and work to eliminate new illegal immigration, but throwing out the people who are already here would mostly just be causing a shitload of grief while shooting ourselves in the foot. It would be better to just bring them into the fold.

I agree, really, in principle; but I think it would be wise to give some consideration to the economic realities and the impact on human lives, including the lives of many citizens, of mass deportations. It would simply be inhumane and impractical.

Many people commit crimes all the time and their families are ripped apart because of it, but they made a choice to do something illegal with specific consequences. It's not inhumane, necessarily, and in this case I definitely don't think it's inhumane.

but throwing out the people who are already here would mostly just be causing a shitload of grief while shooting ourselves in the foot. It would be better to just bring them into the fold.

No.. they cost an insane amount of resources and provide very little back. Why are their home countries so bad...? Why is no one talking about this aspect? If these people are great send them back to their country to keep that country great, instead of stealing the great people from them. Something like every $1 spent here on refugees/immigrants is worth $12 back in their home country to support them.......

The issue here is that banks and financial institutions actually are amazingly trustworthy with all of the issues that bitcoin claims to solve. If I send 50 million via Wells Fargo I am guaranteed to have it show up at its destination with the same amount of trust as I would via bitcoin.

The difference is that if I get scammed over bitcoin then I’m out the bitcoin, meanwhile if I get scammed via a chase bank transfer then I can get a court order to have those funds reverted back to my account.

Not really. Plenty of times I've had money take months to arrive. People have had money seized. Greece took a ~30% haircut off of everyone's bank account.

With Bitcoin that's impossible. With Bitcoin you can write a contract in such a way where you can get your money back (much more easily in the future) if you do happen to make a mistake. It is programmable money, you can make it work better.

When I started working at McDonald's in grade 10 (2010), I started with their "training wage", which was a whopping $6.75 an hour. To get out of the training wage category, you had to work 500 hours. I was given maaaaybe 8-14 a week...... They finally took the training wage away because of the minimum wage problems at the time which was nice, but I only went up to $8.25 or something like that.... It's insane, and I dealt with every single thing in this photo and know it all too well. I am 24 and I still have grease burn scars on my arms and hands. This was in Canada.

It doesn't matter that the job sucks, it matters that basically anyone can do it with no training. Learn skills, earn more money.

I was a dishwasher for years. I got paid less than servers, but gladly did it because I'm (shocker) not very personable. I know it's more rare to be a good server than a good dishwasher, so of course I get paid less.

I play to my strengths and while washing dishes I learned new skills on the side and now I run my own shitty business.

I think you should look at it from a production point of view and not a skilled one. Yeah, pretty much anyone can flip burgers. But the amount of work they doing should count for something. We have become infinitely more productive as a society yet our wages as a whole have stagnated since the 80's. If a fast food worker is making 7.25 an hour but the amount of work that person does earns the company 500 dollars an hour it seems as though there is a large margin for higher pay. I understand that there is overhead and things like that. But we have to take productivity into consideration as well as skill.

The "amount of work they do should count for something," yes, exactly! This is the problem: how do we arrive at a fair price for something? I think that's something markets are rather good at. How would you determine prices?

If a fast food worker is making 7.25 an hour but the amount of work that person does earns the company 500 dollars an hour

...this does not matter. Think about it this way, to make it "fair" the employee would have to pay into the startup costs of that restaurant, for all of the real estate, tools, and training that it took to not only care for that employee themselves, but every other employee that participated in creating the product. So, the employee would start the week paying in their ownership percentage and then hopefully at the end of the week they would get some of the profit, if there is profit. That isn't really practical, especially because most people don't have capital.

What makes more sense, and is better for most people, is to get paid a salary or wage based on their skills. This way even if the business is doing badly, they still get their salary or wage (hopefully, if you don't get paid that's illegal soooo). In exchange for this security, if the business does well the owner keeps the profits.

"What did the owner put in vs what did the burger flipper put in" is a good way to look at it. Just in terms of choosing the location, that alone can be a multi-million dollary profit decision. Who gets to reap that profit, by putting a nice restaurant in a convenient location for many people?

Meanwhile, the person flipping a burger shows up, flips the burger, goes home and has no more worries. If the restaurant that they got a million dollar loan on gets flooded and they don't have flood insurance, that's on the owner. Not the employee.

That's my perspective anyway.

But we have to take productivity into consideration as well as skill.

I disagree. It doesn't matter if you are printing gold coins or fake copper coins, the machines still take the same skill to run -- although you might need to pass a more thorough background check to handle gold, limiting the supply and increasing the salary you can demand. That's how "fair prices" are arrived at, usually..

You made a claim, I asked for a source, and the source you provided didn’t back up your claim. That’s not how this whole thing works. If you want people to believe you, you have to be able to provide good sources, not just tell them to dig deeper.

I don't like the idea of a government bail out. But current 20 to 30 year olds were told that you had to go to college or you wouldn't be anything in life. So teenagers listened and went to college just to find out they were lied to. Now they can't afford to move out, buy a new car or get a house. Forgiving student debt would cost tax payers a trillion dollars but the money it would free up to be spent in the economy would be worth it I think.

I wouldn't classify it as a ridiculous scenario, since OP said they were taking 19 credit hours this semester already and we can infer that they're working at least 10 hours per week part time. They said that they only came up short for rent one month during break, which is a time that they would not be receiving scholarship/loan money and probably have work hours limited by their part time status.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be asking their parents for $300 of assistance in an emergency situation like that. Even $300/semester only works out to $50 a month (if you include breaks as part of each semester), which is probably less than their parents were paying for them while they were still at home.

However, since they're majoring in engineering and therefore looking at decent job options after graduation, they should probably consider taking a little more out in loans each semester. If they continue living on the cheap like they have been, they should be able to pay them off fairly quickly and will have some relief in the meantime.

No, yes, it is ridiculous. You cannot take 19 credits, work full time and make enough to pay off school while you are in school if it costs a significant amount. If you are going to community college, maybe.

It's not unreasonable to ask your parents for money, it is unreasonable to bitch if they say no or don't want to. You are not entitled to that money, they earned it.

Or: don't go to school. I didn't need school and what schooling I did was a complete waste.

Do you guys ever get tired of being misled and manipulated by people who are trying to keep you angry for their own benefit? Every single day, this stuff......they tell you its a huge deal, its not, you're left outraged at nothing. You've been doing this for 20 months now, don't you ever, at any point, start to feel like you're being conned? How many times have we read "this one is huge", and it ends up being nothing at all.

Media outlets need you slobbering for the next bombshell, convinced that any day now Trump is going down. None of it is true, they just want your clicks. They are winning.

Women tend to carry more mass in their trunk/lower extremities. Their upper bodies are relatively less muscular compared to men. This means that they have relatively less muscle available to move their entire body up.

Men have a relatively larger proportion of their muscle in their upper body, meaning they are more likely to be able to do a chin up.

That said, most men and women that come to me cannot perform a chin up (I’m a strength coach). Most people never train the upper body properly, and as weight increases past early puberty, the muscle mass doesn't keep up with what's required to move the bodyweight.

Chinups are performed with a double supinated (underhand) grip and involve more muscle mass being used, which is why they’re easier.

Pull-ups are performed with a double pronated (overhand) grip and are generally slightly more difficult.

That said, most men and women that come to me cannot perform a chin up (I’m a strength coach). Most people never train the upper body properly, and as weight increases past early puberty, the muscle mass doesn't keep up with what's required to move the bodyweight.

Grats on being a strength coach, was one of my dream jobs once upon a time :)

Do you find the average person is kind of... weak strength wise in every way? Full ROM squat, pull up, push up, etc.?

I never worked with anyone, just lifted myself, and boy it seems the average person weak as fuck compared to someone who has lifted for even a couple months.

Why not just give people money? Why do we need gov't involved in healthcare? Negative income tax. If you make below a certain amount, you get some money to help out. That's it. No more welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc. You get paid every 2 weeks from the gov't to help out. You can save the money or waste it however you'd like, it's much better than gov't deciding who gets it (and gov't is corrupt, I'm sure we agree).

Hundreds of dollars a month more. That's how much Trump and the GOP are costing me. Every time I pay my health premiums it's a reminder that things could be better, and it's mostly the GOP's fault that it's not.

And here's the way to avoid writing things like that using SafeMath. Wonder why they titled this article 'New ... bug'. It's essentially the same type of overflow that can occur in any type of arithemtic, since multiplication is just repetitive addition.

The problem can be avoided: using SafeMath for uint256;

Then instead of adding or multiplying directly with the + or * operators, you call add or mul, and the necessary required overflow checks are done for you.

Of course cops are cautious, it's a relatively dangerous job. Most cops are fine. There's really no difference from you and a cop. Are you capable of doing the wrong thing? Are you capable of doing the right thing? Why are you judging them differently from yourself?!

Hundreds of thousands of cops help people every day and go out of their way for other people. Confirmation bias.

I’ve had a handful of interactions with cops since then (a few tickets and one time I was taken in custody) and for the most part they were professional. I’m not saying they’re all assholes. All I’m saying is that in this country they are [sometimes] way too jumpy when it’s not really called for.

People in general are sometimes way too jumpy... it's not just cops. The attitude "cops might shoot you for asking for help" is pretty nuts.

I've had interactions with cops and they were very suspicious of me. When I was younger that bothered me, but as I've gotten older and seen ~2-3 cops die in my community needlessly I understand their apprehension now.

Either way, I am not in favor of making fun of injured people. The fact that she is motivated enough to move around while being injured like that only shows her commitment. This picture is laudable, regardless of her political stances.

Yeah sure, just giving my 2 cents. I don't think it's very cool, if she's disabled, to highlight it and laugh about it...

Even if you disagree, should still not be too much of a jerk... I dunno. She's not a public servant now, so no reason to highlight if she is unhealthy? I would think it's OK to show if Trump is unhealthy, but not after he's done being pres.

I donate 10% of my paycheck and my time sorting canned goods for homeless people. Get over yourself. You don't automatically qualify for empathy because you're disabled. Especially when you behave the way you do. You're gonna throw tantrums, call people idiots, and then pull out the disability card when someone doesn't agree? No.

I'm glad to see you're getting upvoted, you put it very well. Too many of my friends are doing nothing with their lives and it kills me. So much talent, all they do is "hang out", watch shows, or play games. I wish they would work on something.

These lifetime students are typically either a) a one armed, orphaned, native American there on a ton of scholarships or b) really poor and there on a ton of scholarships

Or they come from exceedingly wealthy families. I know people who study for degrees and go to grad schools just for fun. Seldom work, and if they do, it's some stress-free or freelance stuff, no more than 20 hours per week.

Govt setting prices is a terrible idea. Minimum wage is a terrible idea. This is a terrible idea. You want Trump setting prices...?

Markets find prices, not bureaucrats.

Not every person is worth more than poverty wages, which means they are now unemployable under this plan. Teens, for example. Currently about 2 percent make minimum wage, and the vast majority of those are teenagers!!!

The kid was already vegetative by the time the confused and emotionally compromised parents made a ruckus in court and the media. Doctors couldn't tell the difference between CSF and brain matter in his skull. He was completely unaware of everything around him. Even if the doctors could've halted Alfie's brain deterioration, there was irreversible brain damage. His body would not respond to any stimuli except by seizing. His doctors testified that, although they suspected Alfie was not in any pain, they couldn't be sure of it.

The court saw any proloning of Alfie's life would, at best, waste resources that may be used on children with a chance of recovery. At worst, Alfie was in unimaginible pain with no way of communicating it. The state ordered that he be taken off life support and die peacefully.

What would've happened in a free market healthcare system? Assuming the parents had insurance, I would imagine their insurance would eventually stop making payments and the parents would start paying out of pocket until they lost everything including Alfie.

We don't have infinite resources and doctors aren't gods. Poor Alfie was always a gonner. A tragic loss, but one that would not have been avoided.

Directly helping people doesn’t tend to make money. People with lots of money want even more money—it’s pretty addictive once you start. The gospel of wealth, an integral part of wealth/capitalism as far as the non wealthy are concerned, is an outdated distraction as far as the modern rich are concerned.

They’re far more likely to start some political PAC in a misguided attempt to transmute their lucky riches into global political power and influence—promoting everything from anti-vaxxism to mass privatization of education (charter schools) to endless war on the other side of the world (funded largely by the taxes of the poor and middle classes).

Tl;Dr I wouldn’t expect anything like this on the regular from people as rich as Manny. It’s a front page Reddit story because it’s irregular, not because it’s common.

I mean, warmest years on record left and right, hurricanes increasingly strong, no ice in the Arctic in the summer soon, it's not a question of if but how fast at this point. You're using logical fallacies to pretend that the issue is not overwhelmingly proven.